Volume XV, Numbers 7, 8 & 9, July, August & September 1997
The Western Separatist Papers are published
monthly by W.S.P. Ltd.
Address all correspondence to WSP, P.O. Box 40143, Victoria, B.C.
Western Canada V8W 3N3.
A one-year subscription is $15.00. Our e-mail address is:
wcc@ftcnet.com
Our Cover: This cartoon comes from the Grain Growers Guide of November 24, 1920 and demonstrates why there is such a disagreement, even among Western Canadians today, about the Canadian Wheat Board. Historically, at the end of World War One, when grain prices were high, the government established the Canadian Wheat Board to eliminate speculation. Then, when prices fell and the western farmers needed protection, the government yielded to pressures from speculators and dissolved the board. The modern Wheat Board, however is not so simply viewed: many Western Canadian farmers want the right and ability to market their own wheat, without compulsory interference from government. Others find it difficult to break away from traditional perceptions. This has become one more way in which Westerners have been divided amongst and against themselves.
To the Editor:
History has repeated itself in Ontario, this last federal election.
First of all, if the Empire Loyalists had had their way, the preamble to the American Declaration of independence would have begun thus: "We the Sheeple..." And the words further written by Thomas Jefferson would have read: "We hold these truths to be expendable...."
For it was they who took the road to slavery, when they supported the intolerable Quebec Act of June 1774, and a despotic king and government in Britain. A people who are proud to be slaves, rather than support liberty and justice are not deserving of praise, but of scorn.
The 1997 federal election showed how Ontario had not changed, but rather continued on the path of slavery. Again, they supported the intolerable Quebec Act, under its new name of "Distinct Society". So, history has in effect repeated itself. Just as the Quebec Act created first class citizens of the habitant (Metis) in 1774, so today has the Distinct Society clause had the same effect.
The people of Ontario who scorned the West and the Reform Party, will in the future have a heavy price to pay. They have indeed sold their birthright for a mess of Quebecois pottage. Or if you want to call it by another name, French-Canadien Pea Soup would suffice.
There is this belief in Upper and Lower Canada (Central Canada), that the destiny of Canada lies only in their hands, and it has been so from 1867. It is for this reason that Western Canada must seek and affirm its own identity through Independence. For it will never be master of its own destiny in a Canada-controlled by Ontario and Quebec. The destiny of the West lies in it being master of its own house. From now on, the one and only choice left for the West is the road to independence. If Quebec has a right to secede from Canada, then so does the West.
Kenneth T. Tellis
Mississauga, Ontario
To the Editor:
Now that Canadians have chosen 241 Socialists to grace the halls of the House of Commons, I think it is time to reflect upon a new vision of our confederation, one in which I see the provinces of B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba separate form the rest of Canada simply because the unity issue will never be resolved. The forces of negativism in Quebec and Ontario are best left to themselves. They have a heart of their own and we have a heartland which is distinctly far better. My vision of a new Canada (distinctly called "Westcan" for want of a better term) has a strong and resilient fabric fashioned out of:
1. English as the only official language;
2. A separate and distinct constitution, embodying:
3. A legal system that is just rather than a justice system that is not fair, inclusive of a Criminal Code whose provisions, inter alia, are:
4. A market economy which is free, unrestricted and unfettered;
5. No national grain marketing agency and no marketing boards of any kind;
6. No protection for any bank or financial institution;
7. A new currency designed such that it reflects our new nation;
8. A new national banking system that is absolutely free of the fetters of the international banking community and a free floating exchange rate;
9. Legislation that dictates that there will be absolutely no grants subsidies and loan guarantees to any person, organization, company or country;
10. Balanced Budget legislation;
11. A non-interventionist policy which means that we will no longer pay for any peace keeping missions of any kind. Let other countries decide their own fate;
12. A tax system that is fair and equitable for both individuals and corporations, namely, a flat tax of 10% on all gross taxable income from all sources — no deductions and no exemptions;
13. Right to work legislation;
14. No monarch as the head of state. Every elected representative pledges allegiance to the nation's citizenry;
15. No tariffs of any kind;
16. No sales tax of any kind;
17. An education system modeled on the Singapore system. Parents are free to choose the institution of their choice;
18. No Juvenile Delinquents Act;
19. No Department of Indian Affairs. All native land claims must be settled within 5 years of the date we become a nation, failing which all lands become the property of the new nation;
20. A declaration that the rights of the traditional family will be respected;
21. Stiff and harsh sentences for all drug dealers; and
22. No gun laws.
This is my fantasy — my wish list. Anyone wanting to become a citizen of Westcan must abide by our strict immigration laws. We will not tolerate outsiders coming to our country illegally. They will be dealt with summarily and, where necessary, deported forthwith. If this is too much to ask, I would simply remind you that it wasn't too long ago (prior to the Trudeau years for sure) that many of the foregoing laws were in place. But we have lost sight of our responsibilities and concentrated on rights instead.
Al Romanchuk
Edmonton, Alberta
To the Editor:
The following information makes me wonder if the media both national, and international do not report the facts as to the thinking of francophones here and abroad. One cannot see their reasoning for separation, from our point of view, for they must have their propaganda machine working overtime.
Last month a local businessman on a buying trip to Montreal had a citizen of that province tell our Albertan that they wanted separation because Quebec is tired of subsidizing Alberta's oil industry!
My cousin who just returned from a stay in Lebanon had met this young woman who had been a student in Paris. She, with her knowledge of Quebec, said separation was a must because Quebec is tired of supporting the rest of Canada!
Who spreads these falsehoods? How many more in the French sphere of influence think likewise? Does France by supporting Quebec with a hidden agenda consider it a way eventually to once again have a foothold in "New France?" Time will tell.
Robt. Hallett
Carstairs, Alberta
To the Editor:
I would like to point out that you continually underestimate the total population of Western Canada. Trudeau used to do that to purposely quell any aspirations of Westerners who had any thoughts at all about going it alone. He used to refer to "Those 4 and a half million Western Canadians" when at the time we were approaching 8 million. And it worked — when people heard him quote the smaller figure, they believed him, and again became silent, thinking of course that there were too few of them to amount to anything.
Well, you're doing the same thing, but only because your figures are inaccurate. Unless, of course, you're discounting Manitoba, which may be closer to Ontario's way of thinking than its Western partners, and would therefore take it closer to the figure you quoted in your June Papers.
You state 7.5 million in the West. My figure is closer to 9 million. Count them (approximately): B.C., over 3.9 million; AB, 2.7 million, Saskatchewan, 1 million and Manitoba approx. 1.15 million, with the western territories and Yukon thrown in, it comes to roughly 8.8 million souls.
In my figuring that larger figure carries far more weight and the West should be conscious of it. In fact, we are just slightly under representing on-third of the total Canadian population of 30 million and in the fastest growing area of the country.
Thought I'd bring you up to scratch! Keep up the good work.
Murray A. McCulloch
Kelowna, BC
The Western Separatist Papers welcomes your letters to the editor. They should pertain to Western Canadian issues, and be short, due to our space limitations. Please send them to the Editor, WSP, P.O. Box 40143, Victoria, B.C. V8W 3N3, or by e-mail to wcc@ftcnet.com .
On this subject I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.
William Lloyd Garrison (The Liberator, 1831)
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. (. . .)
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to complacency;
from complacency to apathy;
from apathy to dependence;
from dependence back again to bondage.
Alexander Tyler, over 220 years ago, when the American states were still British colonies.
The dreamers are the saviors of the world. As the visible world is sustained by the invisible, so men, through all their trials and sins and sordid vocations, are nourished by the beautiful visions of their solitary dreamers. Humanity cannot forget its dreamers; it cannot let their ideals fade and die; it lives in them; it knows them as the realities which it shall one day see and know.
James Allen, As A Man Thinketh
Cherish your visions; cherish your ideas; cherish the music that stirs in your heart, the beauty that forms in your mind; the loveliness that drapes your purest thoughts, for out of them will grow all delightful conditions, all heavenly environment; of these, if you but remain true to them, your world will at last be built.
James Allen, As A Man Thinketh
And you, too, youthful reader, will realize the Vision (not the idle wish) of your heart, be it base or beautiful, or a mixture of both, for you will always gravitate toward that which you, secretly, most love. Into your hands will be placed the exact results of your own thoughts; you will receive that which you earn; no more, no less.. Whatever your present environment may be, you will fall, remain, or rise with your thoughts, your Vision, your Ideal. You will become as small as your controlling desire; as great as your dominant aspiration.
James Allen, As A Man Thinketh
The Vision that you glorify in your mind, the Ideal that you enthrone in your heart — this you will build your life by, this you will become.
James Allen, As A Man Thinketh
"The End of Racism" by Dinesh D'Souza
Several years ago Dinesh D'Souza revealed the effects of political correctitude in educational institutions of higher learning with his book "Illiberal Education." This book was as revealing for Canadians as it was for Americans. His latest book, "The End of Racism" (hard cover, published in 1995 by The Free Press, A Division of Simon and Schuster, Inc., 724 pp.) is likewise a very useful book for Canadians in examining the premises and fallacies of multiculturalism, and their effects upon Canadian society.
In the Preface, D'Souza writes:
"As a `person of color,' I enjoy an element of ethnic immunity that enables me to address topics with a frankness that would be virtually impossible on the part of a white male. I believe this is part of what is wrong with the American race debate, which excommunicates many participants whose cooperation is essential to develop just principles for the emerging multiracial society. I hope that, by addressing some of the taboo issues in the right tone I can help bring the off-stage discussion of race into public view, narrow the parameters of the unspeakable, and clear the ground for a deeper and wider inquiry."
For example, the chapter entitled "Is Eurocentrism a Racist Concept?" deals with the concept of multiculturalism, and examines the roots of the new, politically-correct version of Christopher Columbus. Some quotes from this chapter follow:
"Yet if multiculturalism represented nothing more than an upsurge of interest in other cultures, it would be uncontroversial. . . . Multiculturalism is better understood as a civil conflict within the Western academy over contrasting approaches to learning about the world. . . At its deepest level, multiculturalism represents a denial of all Western claims to truth. . . .Yet in the world, and in the traditional curriculum, all cultures are not on the same footing. Consequently multiculturalism in practice is distinguished by an effort to establish cultural parity by attacking the historical and contemporary hegemony of Western civilization. . . . Multiculturalism is based on the relativist assumption that since all cultures are inherently equal, therefore differences of power, wealth, and achievement between cultures are most likely due to oppression."
". . . the debate over Columbus and his successors is a debate over whether Western civilization was a good idea, and whether it should continue to shape the United States. Multiculturalists typically answer in the negative." (He follows with many examples of this.)
"The real issue, however, as Leszek Kolakowski points out, is that `the impulse to explore has never been evenly distributed among the world's civilizations.' It is no coincidence that it was Columbus who reached the Americas and not American Indians who arrived on the shores of Europe. . . . The reason advocates of multiculturalism charge Columbus with genocide is because they need to explain why small groups of Europeans were able to defeat overwhelming numbers of Indians, capsize their mighty native empires, and seize their land." He pinpoints the qualities of the Europeans as "a rational understanding of the universe, as well as a new understanding of individual initiative. By contrast, the Indians still lived in the world of the spirits — the enchanted universe. They could not adapt to changing circumstances. they confused the Europeans with gods."
Bogus Multiculturalism
"Multicultural demands in American schools and universities do not arise in a vacuum. They arise from the conviction that Western culture is constitutively defined by a virtually uninterrupted series of crimes visited upon other groups: blacks, women, homosexuals, natives of the Third World. Since the West is perceived to be historically defined by racism, sexism, heterosexism, colonialism, and imperialism, multicultural advocates look to other cultures to find some alternative to the oppressive institutions of the white man. . . .As Conor Cruise O'Brien points out, the `vague theoretical enthusiasm' of American multiculturalists for other cultures often runs headlong into the actual institutions and practices of those cultures. . . .Non-Western cultures have virtually no indigenous tradition of equality. Tribalism and social hierarchy are not only widespread but widely considered legitimate in many Third World countries."
"The point is that the Western attitude of tolerance finds itself confronted with the cultural reality of non-Western intolerance, raising the classic dilemma of whether liberals should be tolerant of intolerance. This conundrum is compounded when we consider many of the classic texts of non-Western cultures."
"Consequently multiculturalism in practice tends to ignore the indigenous institutions of non-Western cultures, avert its gaze from their most important works, and instead project domestic ideological concerns onto the Third World. Issues such as feminism and sexual identity are Western political obsessions."
"Thus multiculturalism in practice frequently misrepresents both American history and world history. A relativist framework makes it virtually impossible for advocates of multiculturalism to conceded the obvious truth that all cultures have not contributed equally to America. `Our diversity has been at the center of the making of American,' Ronald Takai insists. Yet while many groups in the form of slaves, indentured servants, and migrant workers have helped in the building of the railroads and the cultivation of crops, the distinctive political and economic institutions of this country are the product of the single culture. America's novus ordo seclorum, a new order for the ages, was and remains a distinctive product of the philosophical and religious soil of Western civilization."
"Similarly the emphasis on the crimes of the West and the victimization of non-Western cultures — what Takaki promotes as a shared narrative of minority oppression — results in multicultural suppression of the illiberal traditions of other cultures and also of the liberal tradition that is a unique product of the West. Thus multiculturalism becomes what Edward Said might call the new Orientalism. It manipulates and distorts other cultures for Western ideological ends. The politics today may be different, but the intellectual transaction is an old one. The consequence is that multiculturalism becomes an obstacle to true cultural understanding, and implants in students an unjustified hatred of the liberal institutions of their society. Both truth and justice suffer as a consequence."
Rethinking Multiculturalism
"As we have seen, advocates of multiculturalism such as Stanley Fish tend to view opposition to immigration as inherently racist. Others, such as Ronald Takai, go beyond this to argue that it is no less bigoted to expect nonwhilte immigrants to assimilate to the norms of the American mainstream. Advocates of multiculturalism typically indict the West for inflicting racist oppression on other cultures, arguing that America should modify dominant European institutions both in the classroom and in society, so as to give equal recognition and representation to non-Western cultures. In this view, what Americans have in common is their ethnic and cultural diversity and we should learn to celebrate that.
"Yet to say that all that united Americans is their diversity is another way of saying that there is nothing that unites Americans. This is not only untrue, it is unworkable. Consider the dispute over a common language. Even more than homogeneous societies, multiracial societies need alingua franca. If most Americans spoke English and new immigrants all spoke Spanish, a bilingual compromise could be reached in which natives learned Spanish as a second language and immigrants learned English. But in a society with many groups and many ancestral languages — Spanish, Hindustani, Urdu, and Tagalog — we risk an American Babel, a breakdown of communication, if everyone does not speak a shared language. For reasons of practicality, this language must be English, which is rapidly becoming the global medium of intercultural communication."
"The relativist proposition that cultures should be equally respected and accommodated within American borders is equally unrealistic. Indeed such demands do not take the concept of culture seriously. Culture originates in the cult — the deepest wellsprings of human belief and endeavor. Cultures generally arise out of religion: thus one can speak of Islamic culture or Hindu culture. In their pursuit of the good life, cultures have competing visions which are often radically at odds with each other. Consequently Horace Kallen's vision of a federation or mosaic of harmoniously coexisting cultures ignores the fact that a society cannot simultaneously embrace multiple and contradictory worldviews." (Emphasis added.)
. . ."No society can absorb unlimited diversity. When immigrants import to the United States attitudes and mores that clash with those of natives, there is bound to be reciprocal tension and suspicion. . . .Such concerns are legitimate and not evidence of bigotry. Americans are entitled to preserve their way of life and determine for themselves what level of immigration benefits the country, and how many newcomers can be reasonably absorbed in a given year."
The solution that Mr. D'Souza proposes to "end racism" involves "a public policy that is strictly indifferent to race," a proposal that has been made for Canadians as well, by some proponents of western Canadian independence, and which has been, ironically, labeled "racist." Those who are serious about solving the problems of Western Canada, will find plenty of arguments to counter that claim.
This book has extensive footnotes and very complete citations for its quotations and propositions, and any serious student of the multicultural dilemma in Canada should be able to justify its price of $40.00 (Cdn).
by Douglas Christie
There are times to acknowledge and even point out political differences between various provincial parties; then there are times to realize that we are all British Columbians (or Albertans, or citizens of Saskatchewan or Manitoba), and this is the land we all live in. This is the place we must defend and protect for the good of all of us.
At such times, divisions among us are counter-productive. We are at such a time over the fisheries dispute with America.
The eastern premiers, the eastern media and the regime at Ottawa are in their traditional nice Canadian mode of surrender to the Americans. Premier Clark, however, has taken a strong and aggressive stand. Jeffrey Simpson the Globe and Mail guru hastens to warn us of possible painful consequences. Naturally in any fight you could lose. In such circumstances the consequences are usually painful. But is it better to surrender?
One of the reasons the American dollar is stronger than the Canadian dollar is the American willingness to risk and to fight for what they want. To those who say that without Ottawa we would be absorbed by the United States should take a good look at how quickly Ottawa has been willing to surrender our interest on the fisheries issue. They are the ultimate wimps and David Anderson and his supercilious English-style ignorance is a perfect example of Ottawa's ineffectual nature. Ottawa has always been our weakest link and the greatest impediment to a strong and prosperous British Columbia. They saddled us all with the French language to placate Quebec but appeasement failed as usual.
For once let us realize Glen Clark has courage and stand behind him. I disagree with him very fundamentally on many political issues and dislike strongly many things he has done, but when B.C. is threatened, who stands up to the external threat, Glen Clark, or David Anderson and Jean Chretien?
There is no doubt his Nanoose stand irritates the Americans and his approval of the Alaskan Ferry blockade caused them alarm, but it certainly got their attention. The Americans play hard ball and they have no use for wimps. Jean Chretien and David Anderson can't lead, won't follow and should get out of the way. For the time being, Glen Clark is our leader and I prefer the fight regardless of pain, rather than ignominious surrender.
Our land, our resources, even our culture are worth fighting for and you can trust the eastern establishment to sell us out for their own shallow gains, 100% of the time. No wonder they don't like Glen Clark. No matter what his faults, he does have a backbone in this case and in any fight, I much prefer Glen Clark with a backbone to David Anderson without.
The phone number for the Western Canada Concept is (250) 727-3438. The acquisition of this number has already, without advertisement, led to requests for information about the idea of Western independence.